Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Everest Indemnity Insurance Company et al

Filing 75

ORDER Denying 73 Request to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 5/9/2011. (jer)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,

Case No. 10cv1649 BTM(POR)
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER
ANTI-SLAPP MOTION TO STRIKE

12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15

v.
EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On March 29, 2011, the Court dismissed this case for lack of subject matter
18
jurisdiction after Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to establish the existence of diversity jurisdiction.
19
Due to the Court’s dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court did
20
not rule on the anti-SLAPP motion to strike filed by defendants Innovative Communities, Inc.
21
and CRV El Centro Partners, LP (collectively “CRV”) on September 8, 2010. CRV has filed
22
a “Request that Court Retain Jurisdiction over Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike.” CRV’s request
23
is DENIED.
24
In support of its request, CRV cites to cases where courts decided anti-SLAPP
25
motions after voluntary dismissals or dismissals for failure to state a claim. In this case,
26
however, the Court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court
27
has no jurisdiction to “retain,” and no authority to decide a motion regarding the merits of
28
Plaintiffs’ claims. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946) (“Whether the complaint states
1

10cv1649 BTM(POR)

1

a cause of action on which relief could be granted is a question of law and just as issues of

2

fact it must be decided after and not before the court has assumed jurisdiction over the

3

controversy”); Taylor v. IRS, 2011 WL 1348320, at *1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 2011) (“Having

4

determined that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks authority to decide the

5

Commonwealth Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).”)

6

The Court notes that Defendants could have raised the issue of subject matter

7

jurisdiction and, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), demanded that Plaintiff dismiss the

8

Complaint. If, in that scenario, Plaintiff had failed to dismiss the case, Defendants could have

9

moved for Rule 11 sanctions and the Court would have had jurisdiction to award sanctions

10

even after the dismissal of the case. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 389

11

(1990). However, it was the Court that sua sponte raised the issue of subject matter

12

jurisdiction.

13

For the reasons stated above, CRV’s request to exercise jurisdiction over the Anti-

14

SLAPP motion to strike is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
DATED: May 9, 2011
17
18
19

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

10cv1649 BTM(POR)